SynthesisEuropean radiology2019
Diagnostic accuracy of cone-beam breast computed tomography: a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of the readability of ChatGPT and Bard in medical communication: a meta-analysis.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Pooled it
- Heterogeneity in Systematic Reviews of Medical Imaging Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Comparison of Diagnostic Test Accuracy of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography and Digital Breast Tomosynthesis for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Approach.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Pooled it
- Comparing Biomarkers for Predicting Pathological Responses to Neoadjuvant Therapy in HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Pooled it
- A Meta-analysis on Interventional Metrics of Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunt Placement With Cone-beam Computed Tomography Guidance and Fluoroscopy Guidance.In vivo (Athens, Greece)Pooled it
- Performance of contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT to predict nipple-areolar complex involvement in early-stage breast cancer.European radiology · 2026Article
- Nomogram for preoperative differentiation of benign and malignant breast tumors using contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast CT (CE CB-BCT) quantitative imaging and assessment features.La Radiologia medica · 2024Article
- Radiomics in cone-beam breast CT for the prediction of axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: a multi-center multi-device study.European radiology · 2024Article
- Article
- Invasive Lobular Carcinoma: A Review of Imaging Modalities with Special Focus on Pathology Concordance.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Dedicated breast CT: state of the art-Part II. Clinical application and future outlook.European radiology · 2022Review
- Correlation between contrast-enhanced cone-beam breast computed tomography features and prognostic staging in breast cancer.The British journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Assessment of Cone-Beam Breast Computed Tomography for Predicting Pathologic Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer: A Prospective Study.Journal of oncology · 2022Article
- A New Modality for Breast Cancer Diagnosis During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Case Report.European journal of breast health · 2022Article
- Comparison of propagation-based CT using synchrotron radiation and conventional cone-beam CT for breast imaging.European radiology · 2020Article
- Image quality comparison between a phase-contrast synchrotron radiation breast CT and a clinical breast CT: a phantom based study.Scientific reports · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo review the published evidence on cone-beam breast computed tomography (CBBCT) and summarize its diagnostic accuracy for breast lesion assessment. MATERIALS AND
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted using the EMBASE, MEDLINE and CENTRAL libraries. Studies were included if reporting sensitivity and specificity for discrimination of benign and malignant breast lesions via breast CT. Sensitivity and specificity were jointly modeled using a bivariate approach calculating summary areas under the receiver-operating characteristics curve (AUC). All analyses were separately performed for non-contrast and contrast-enhanced CBBCT (NC-CBBCT, CE-CBBCT).
resultsA total of 362 studies were screened, of which 6 with 559 patients were included. All studies were conducted between 2015 and 2018 and evaluated female participants. Four of six studies included dense and very dense breasts with a high proportion of microcalcifications. For NC-CBBCT, pooled sensitivity was 0.789 (95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and pooled specificity was 0.697 (95% CI: 0.471-0.851), both showing considerable significant between-study heterogeneity (I
conclusionThe evidence available for CBBCT tends to show superior diagnostic performance for CE-CBBCT over NC-CBBCT regarding sensitivity, specificity and partial AUC. Diagnostic accuracy of CE-CBBCT was numerically comparable to that of breast MRI with meta-analyses reporting sensitivity of 0.9 and specificity of 0.72. KEY POINTS: • CE-CBBCT rather than NC-CBBCT should be used for assessment of breast lesions for its higher diagnostic accuracy. • CE-CBBCT diagnostic performance was comparable to published results on breast MRI, thus qualifying CE-CBBCT as a potential imaging alternative for patients with MRI contraindications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30255249What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.